Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
Updates on the ongoing lawsuit brought by Ring of Honor star Scott “Colt Cabana” Colton has brought against former WWE Champion Phil “CM Punk” Brooks in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois, stemming from Cabana's allegations of unpaid legal fees and breach of contract, stemming from the lawsuit that WWE physician Doctor Chris Amann filed against the two in the fallout of Punk's appearance on Cabana's Art of Wrestling podcast.
CM Punk filed a follow-up to his motion to dismiss the amended lawsuit on 2/14.
In that filing, Punk once again argued that Cabana has failed to explain under Illinois law why his amended lawsuit should be allowed move forward after the initial filing was dismissed. Punk's attorneys are claiming that Cabana have failed to properly argue why the lawsuit should stand, instead choosing to point back to the allegations in the amended lawsuit.
Punk's filing complained that Cabana "failed to meaningfully address the terminal deficiencies that are replete throughout his Amended Complaint and which are the subject of the Motion at bar. In fact, Plaintiff's Response is almost entirely bereft of any argument at all, instead choosing merely to refer this Court to his Amended Complaint. It is Plaintiff's prerogative to submit a threadbare response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, but in doing so, Plaintiff only underscores the fatal insufficiency of his claims for breach of contract and fraud.”
Punk's attorneys also alleged that Cabana has "all but abandoned his contention that there was any initial "offer" in December 2014", referring to Punk's text message that he could cover Cabana legally, which Cabana has previously argued amounted to a legal contract that Punk did not live up to. In th3 2/14 filing, Punk noted, "Plaintiff has now basically conceded that he did not refrain from removing the podcast episode or enter into joint legal representation with Defendant based on any contractual agreement with the Defendant. With this much clear, Plaintiff seeks instead to somehow maintain his assertion that the June l, 2016 email from his own attorney assuring Plaintiff that he would continue to jointly represent Plaintiff and Defendant in the Amann Lawsuit constituted a separate "offer" from Defendant in consideration of Plaintiff forgoing obtaining separate counsel and settling out of the case. Plaintiff failed to allege any facts to support this assertion, let alone sufficient facts to state all the elements which are necessary to sustain" Plaintiffs breach of contract claim."
So, Punk's side is claiming that the offer from Punk's attorney to continue to represent Cabana after Punk and Cabana had a falling out over the course of Dr. Chris Amann lawsuit would not be a legally enforceable contract that Punk alleged breached.
Punk's filing also noted that Cabana's "concession that he willingly refrained from acquiescing to Amman's demand letter preceding the underlying lawsuit and then, for more than a year, accepted and refused to financially contribute to—legal services for his own defense at significant expense to Defendant raises questions concerning unjust enrichment of Plaintiff."
Punk’s attorneys also sought to shoot down the claims of breach of contract, claiming Cabana has still not sufficiently claimed a breach of contract or fraud in the amended lawsuit under Illinois law. They also argued that Cabana’s allegations against Punk, “lack the specificity, particularity, and certainty required to sustain a pleading of fraud under Illinois law.”
It was noted that Cabana's lawsuit alleges: "Colton is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that on and after May 6, 2016, Brooks was advised and knew that in the event that Colton retained separate counsel in the Amman Lawsuit, Colton would attempt to make a separate agreement to ?settle the Amman Lawsuit as to Colton. Colton is further informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that on and after May 6, 2016, Brooks was advised and knew that, if Colton could effectuate a separate settlement of the Amman Lawsuit as to Colton, Colton would thereafter cease to assist or cooperate with Brooks' defense in the Amman Lawsuit."
In response, Punk's attorneys argued, "Plaintiff alleges zero facts regarding how it is Defendant allegedly "was advised and knew" what Plaintiff claims. What facts are these allegations based on? Defendant "was advised" by who? These allegations lack the specificity, particularity, and certainty required to sustain a pleading of fraud."
Judge Daniel J. Kubasiask will rule on the matter by 3/15.
Thanks to Billy Krotchsen for all his help and assistance with this story.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
